Letter from CardinalsOttaviani and Baccito His Holiness Pope Paul
VI

(Translation)

Rome, September 25th, 1969

Most Holy
Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of
others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad
exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and
reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards
Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The
accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of
theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of
its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted
which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents,
both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of
Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an
insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the
Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break
with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the
face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations
in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a
minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the
suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have
always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without
infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is
bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the
liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the
faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable
lessening of faith.

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result
is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour
notice daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only
reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but
find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the
spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that
when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful,
those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the
abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your
Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the
purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common
Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to
the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised
by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic
world.

The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the
Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal
Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of
satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of
worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no
intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which
the Catholic conscience is bound.

The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors
against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the
deposit of Faith.

==========

I

HISTORY OF THE
CHANGE

In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was
required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called
"normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam
Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings.
The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial
reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The
international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New
Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of
it.

In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic
Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New
Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period
the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views
about it.

In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient
Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part
to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, was for four centuries the
norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite,
and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant
source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God".
Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be
necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more
widespread and intensive among Christians".

This assertion seems to us to
embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at
all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting
treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy
to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a
better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never
have wanted changed.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously
venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see
how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller
participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its
many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered
worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.

REJECTED BY SYNOD

Sine the "normative" Mass (New Mass),
now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass),
was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the
collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of
all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one
fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a
tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the
Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to
support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and
makes it acceptable to the Catholic people.

The Vatican Council did
indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the
various parts of the Mass to be reordered "ut singularum partium propria ratio
nec non mutua connexio clarius pateant." We shall see how the Ordo recently
promulgated corresponds with this original intention.

An attentive
examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in
themselves the judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both
have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of
Protestants.

==========

II

DEFINITION OF THE
MASS

Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7
of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the
Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred
meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of
the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ,
"where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII,
20)".

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper",
and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is
further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a
memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None
of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of
sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the
intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's
presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of
the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate
omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and
therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.

In the second part of
this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation,
that there holds good, "eminently", for this assembly Christ's promise that
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them" (Matt. XVIII, 20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual
presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane,
save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the
Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into
"liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the
affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of
"the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an
altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though
between two points of equal symbol value. More will be said about this point
later.

This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all
acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately in
an absolute sense.

We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The
Lord's Supper or Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the
Lord's Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the
Eucharistic Liturgy.

As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively
placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of
the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and
Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of
the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, while the Resurrection is the
consequent fruit of it.

We shall later see how, in the very consecratory
formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and
reiterated.

==========

III

PRESENTATION OF THE
ENDS

We now come to the ends of the Mass.

1. Ultimate
End. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according
to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very
Incarnation: "Coming into the world he saith: 'sacrifice and oblation thou
wouldst not but a body thou hast fitted me' ". (Ps. XXXIX, 7-9 in Heb. X,
5).

This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance
of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas", from the end of the Mass with the
omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas", and from the Preface, which on
Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be
reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but
once a year.

2. Ordinary End. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too
has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of
sins of the living and the dead, it lays emphasis on the nourishment and
sanctification of those present (No. 54). Christ certainly instituted the
Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order
that we might be united to Him in this state but his self- immolation precedes
the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the
application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the
faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally.

3. Immanent
End. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be
pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be
acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo
changes the nature of the offering turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts
between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of
life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual
drink".

"Thou are blessed Lord God of the Universe because from thy
generosity we have received the bread (or wine) which we offer thee, the fruit
of the earth (or vine) and of man's labour. May it become for us the bread of
life (or spiritual drink)".

There is no need to comment on the utter
indeterminateness of the formulae "bread of life" and "spiritual drink", which
might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the
definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own:
here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially)
changed.

SUPPRESSION OF GREAT PRAYERS

In the preparation of
the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great
prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et
mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence
and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a
recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present
moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend
"cum adore suavitatis", into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency
was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual
reference of the Eucharistic prayers to God, there is no longer any clear
distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

Having removed the
keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends,
they had to substitute fictitious ends of their own; leading to gestures
intended to stress to union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among
themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the
Offering of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of
this offer will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the
Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity
banquet.

==========

IV

THE ESSENCE

We now
pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

The mystery of the Cross is no
longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible
for the people. And for these reasons:

1. The sense given in the Novus
Ordo to the so-called "prex Eucharistica" is: "that the whole congregation of
the faithful may be united to Christ in proclaiming the great wonders of God and
in offering sacrifice" (No. 54. the end)

Which sacrifice is referred to?
Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial
definition of the "prex Eucharistica" is as follows: "The centre and culminating
point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic
Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification" (No. 54, pr.). The
effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The
explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the
"Suscipe", has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals
the change in doctrine.

2. The reason for this non-explicitness
concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed
from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former
Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence, (a
quotation - a footnote - from the Council of Trent) and again the context is
that of "nourishment" (no. 241, note 63)

The Real and permanent Presence
of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is
never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally
ignored.

The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the
Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations,
as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the
miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and
tacit negation of the Real Presence.

Note, too, the suppressions:

of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one,
with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration; of the
purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;

of the
preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the
Consecration;

of the purification of the vessels, which need not be
immediate, nor made on the corporal;

of the pall protecting the
chalice;

of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;

of the
consecration of movable altars;

of the sacred stone and relics in the
movable altar or upon the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred
precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in
private houses); of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;

of
thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the
priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion
standing);

of all the former prescriptions in the case of the
consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction:
"reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)

All these things only serve to emphasise
how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly
repudiated.

3. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is
almost always called 'table', "The altar or table of the Lord, which is the
centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy" (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that
the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round
it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must
be the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn
spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem
to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is
excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the
celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about
sacramentally. Before, they were 'one and the same presence'.

SEPARATION OF ALTAR & TABERNACLE

Now it is
recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private
devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a
relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be
focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped, bare table. Once again the
contrast is made between 'private' piety and 'liturgical' piety: altar is set up
against altar.

In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion
the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf for
the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted
disparaging attitude towards the Tabernacle, as towards every form of
Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow
to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species
remain.

The formula of Consecration. The ancient formula of consecration
was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by
three things:

a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the
Pauline insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's
faith in the mystery realised by the Church through the hierarchical
priesthood.

b) The punctuation and typographical lay-out: the full stop
and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental
and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the centre of
the page and often in a different colour, clearly detached from the historical
context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous
value.

__________"To separate the Tabernacle from the Altar is
tantamount to separating two things which, of their very nature, must remain
together". (PIUS XII, Allocution to the International Liturgy Congress,
Assisi-Rome, Sept. 18-23, 1956). cf. also Mediator Dei, 1.5, note
28.

c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescompque feceritis in mei memoriam
facietis"), which in Greek is "eis emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory.) This
referred to Christ operating and not to mere memory of Him, or of the event: an
invitation to recall what He did ("Haec . . . in mei memoriam facietis") in the
way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc
facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of the old -
proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages will irremediably cause
the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the 'end' of the
Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the 'beginning'. The concluding idea of
'commemoration' will certainly once again take the place of the idea of
sacramental action.

The narrative mode is now emphasised by the formula
"narratio institutionis" (no. 55d) and repeated by the definition of the
anamnesis, in which it is said that "The Church recalls the memory of Himself"
(no. 556).

In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the
modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect
of modifying the modus significandi of the words of Consecration. The
consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of a
historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical
affirmation uttered by Him in whole Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus
meum" (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi").

Furthermore the acclamation
assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("We announce thy
death, O Lord, until Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of
eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval
or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is
proclaimed just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar,
almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true
Coming.

This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of optional
acclamation no. 2 (Appendix): "As often as we eat of this bread and drink of
this chalice we announce thy death, O Lord, until thou comest", where the
juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real
Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of
ambiguity.

==========

V THE ELEMENTS OF SACRIFICE

We
come now to the realisation of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were:
1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.

In the
Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta),
hence totally false - from the opening definition: "Missa est sacra synaxis seu
congregatio populi" to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to
convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord (no. 48). "Qua
salutatione et populi responsione manifestatur ecclesiae congregatae
mysterium".

A true presence, certainly of Christ but only a spiritual
one, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as an assembly manifesting and
soliciting such a presence.

This interpretation is constantly underlined:
by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass (nos. 74-152);
by the unheard of distinction between "Mass with congregation" and "Mass without
congregation" (nos. 203-231); by the definition of the "oratio universalis seu
fidelium" (no. 45) where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of
the people (populus sui sacerdotii munus excercens") presented in an equivocal
way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all
the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the
interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two
Memento.

In "Eucharistic Prayer III" ("Vere sanctus", p. 123) the
following words are addressed to the Lord: "from age to age you gather a people
to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to
the glory of your name", the 'in order that' making it appear that the people
rather than the priest are the indispensable element in the celebration; and
since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves
appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would
not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorised to join the priest
in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to
have already occurred).

PRIEST A MERE PRESIDENT

2) The priest's position is
minimised, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he
is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated
minister celebrating in persona Christi. Secondly in relation to the Church, as
a "quidam de populo". In the definition of the epiclesis (no. 55), the
invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church: the part of the priest has
vanished.

In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no
longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that his is no
longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is
integrated with the fratres. Even the server address him as such in the
Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo".

Already, prior to this latest
reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest - the
moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were
brought together in the closest union - and the Communion of the faithful has
been suppressed.

Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to
sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of
the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant
minister.

The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments
(in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient - no. 298) obliterate even
more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all
His virtues, become merely a "non-commissioned officer" whom one or two signs
may distinguish from the mass of the people: "a little more a man than the
rest", to quite the involuntarily humorous definition of a modern preacher.
Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has
united: the sole Priesthood and the Word of God.

3) Finally, there is the
Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case only, namely the "Mass
without congregation", is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et
Ecclesiae" (no. 4, cf. Presb. Ord. no. 13), whereas in the case of the "Mass
with congregation" this is not referred to except for the purpose of
"remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In
offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the
priest associates the people with himself" (no. 60), instead one ones which
would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum
Deo Patri".

In this context the follows are to be noted:

1) the
very serious omission of the phrase "Through Christ Our Lord", the guarantee of
being heard given to the Church in every age (John, XIV, 13-14; 15; 16; 23;
24);

2) the all pervading "paschalism", almost as though there were no
other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of
grace;

3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the
communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal,
is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a
pilgrim Church - no longer militant - against the Powers of Darkness - looking
towards a future which having lost its line with eternity is conceived in purely
temporal terms.

The Church - One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic - is
diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Eucharistic Prayer No. 4", has
taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Cannon "on behalf of all orthodox
believers of the Catholic and apostolic faith". Now we have merely: "all who
seek you with a sincere heart".

Again, in the Memento for the dead, these
have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace"
but only "who have died in the peace of thy Christ", and to them are added, with
further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host "of all the
dead whose faith is known to you alone".

Furthermore, in none of three
new Eucharistic prayers, is there any reference, as has already been said, to
that state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a
particular Memento: all of this again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory
and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.

DESACRALISING THE CHURCH

Desacralising omissions
everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. Above all she is not presented as a
sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part
of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in
the person of St. Michael, for the first.

The various hierarchies of
angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new
Preface of "Prayer II". In the Communicantes, reminder of the Pontiffs and holy
martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the
transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what
became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos
the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her
and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of
peril.

The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly
intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Prayers, of
the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and
the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal
Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman
Canon.

A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the
omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the
salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the 'Ite, missa est' now
not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.

The double Confiteor
showed how the priest, in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply
and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum
mysterium", about to be accomplished by him and even (in the Aufer a nobis)
entering into the Holy of Holies, invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te,
Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both
these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of
the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant
here.

The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred
character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for
celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a
simple "table" without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth
(nos. 260, 265). Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the
Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the
sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.

The process of
desacralisation is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the
reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at
Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels (no. 244d);
the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of the
priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes commentator
himself from his constantly being required to 'explain' what he is about to
accomplish) - of readings (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people
at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort
offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the 'mulier idonea'
(anti-Scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of
the Church will be authorised to read the lessons and also perform other
"ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" (no. 70).

Finally, there
is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in
the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and
Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants.

==========

VI

THE DESTRUCTION OF
UNITY

We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the
new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass
and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete
evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, and spiritually and psychologically
destructive elements contained in the document - whether in text, rubrics or
instructions - would be a vast undertaking.

BY PRIEST OR PARSON

No more than a passing glance has
been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for
repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second
of them gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of
Cannon II it has been well said, among other thins, that it could be recited
with perfect tranquillity of conscience by a priest who no longer believes
either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass - hence
even by a Protestant minister.

The new Missal was introduced in Rome as
"a text of ample pastoral matter", and "more pastoral than juridical", which the
Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilise according to the varying
circumstances and genius of different peoples. In the same Apostolic
Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the New Missal legitimate
variations and adaptations".

Besides, Section I of the new Congregation
for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and 'constant
revision' of the liturgical books". The last official bulletin of the Liturgical
Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now
have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman'
style will have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that
which was conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of
concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its
myriad congregations."

The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup
de grace to the Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of
Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that "in such a variety of
tongues one (?) and the same prayer of all . . . may ascend more fragrant than
any incense".

COUNCIL OF TRENT REJECTED

The demise of Latin may
therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian Chant, which even the Council
recognised as "liturgiae romanae proprium" (Sacros Conc. no 116), ordering that
"principem locum obtineat" (ibid.) will logically follow, with the freedom of
choice, amongst other things, of the texts of the Introit and
Gradual.

From the outset therefore the New Rite is launched as
pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus
swept away for good and all, what will become of that unity of faith that went
with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without
compromise?

It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of
presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless,
the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus
Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic
alternative.

==========

VII

THE ALIENATION OF THE
ORTHODOX

The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to
a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from Eastern Churches.
The result - utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the
oriental Liturgies - can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in
truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of
anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence
of deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie.

Against this, the Novus Ordo
would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy
of Rome came close to those of the East.

Moreover in abandoning its
unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo lost what was
spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which
bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even those closest
to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more
alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

By
the way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various
groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church
of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship,
morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

==========

VIII

THE ABANDONMENT OF
DEFENCES

St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the
present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument
of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of
Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the
Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the
situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's
solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal "should
anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath
of God Almighty and his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. (Quo Primum, July 13,
1570)

When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it
was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine
decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist,
as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones today.

It
was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten
the purity of the deposit of faith (depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum
novitates" Tim. VI, 20) the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost the defences of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal
pronouncements.

These were immediately reflected in her worship, which
became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's
worship back at all cost to ancient practices by refashioning, artificially and
with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, what in
earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means as we see today only
too clearly - to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the
protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched
over the centuries.

And all this at one of the most critical moments - if
not the most critical moment - of the Church's history!

Today, division
and schism are officially acknowledges to exist not only outside of but within
the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised.
Errors against the Faith are not so much insinuated but rather an inevitable
consequence of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been given equal
recognition.

To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries
was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship (and to replace it with another
which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties
implicitly authorised, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors
against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound
to proclaim, an incalculable error.